I always scratched my head at these laws that say "1000 ft from X" and this court was correct in that assessment... How could a person KNOW when they are withing 1,000 ft of something. I mean that something may be blocks over from where you are.

I also wondered if anyone has ever tried to map it out. Like 1000 ft of a school, 1000 foot close to a park... and lay it all out. So as a thought experiment I took a screen shot of the garfield park area (since I know that area) and then ID's all the Chicago Park District parks, and any school parks. Then I drew around them out to 1000 ft in every direction. Now I may be missing some, and may be missing some schools which also fall into this crazy law, but check out what 15 minutes got me:

Attached Thumbnails

I don't know what kind of weak argument the state made, but there is an exception for law-abiding individuals, it is called a Concealed Carry License. The CCL exempts citizens from the 1000-foot UUW/AUUW law.

The original conviction (April 2013) pre-dated the FCCA. The statutes argued in these proceedings included only the UUW/AUUW codes effective at that time. The CCL exemption did not yet exist.

Edited by kwc, 02 February 2018 - 12:58 PM.

"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

I don't think the state argued very well. It's not surprising because the Illinois patronage system puts incompetent boneheads in the Attorney General's office.

When Chief Justice Karmeier illustrates why the law should be examined with intermediate scrutiny he says:

As to the second variable on the sliding scale, the severity of the law&rsquo;s burden on the right, the law at issue affects the gun rights of the entire law-abiding population of Illinois like the laws in Moore, Ezell, Aguilar, and Mosley. As in those cases, the law functions as a categorical prohibition without providing an exception for law-abiding individuals. It is therefore a severe burden on the recognized second amendment right of self-defense.

I don't know what kind of weak argument the state made, but there is an exception for law-abiding individuals, it is called a Concealed Carry License. The CCL exempts citizens from the 1000-foot UUW/AUUW law.

.

This is what I'm struggling with understanding. The CCL wasn't even mentioned. Ergo, it would appear that *anyone* not legally prohibited from owning a gun should be able to carry within 1000' feet of a public park. No permit required.

Close but not quite. Carrying in public without a CCL is prohibited. Carrying within 1000 feet of a park is prohibited. They are two distinct offenses. He was convicted of the 1000 foot/park, and was not tried on the offense of carrying in public. The offense he was convicted of was deemed unconstitutional, but it seems to me that he is guilty of carrying in public, a separate offense.

The bad part of this is that the judge should have struck down the statute because it doesn't pass Strict Scrutiny, but instead struck it down using Rational Basis.

Which is to say that they struck it down because the state didn't offer enough evidence that the law does what it was intended to do. That should be irrelevant. The law must pass all three criteria under Strict Scrutiny:

The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest.
The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest.
It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest.

The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. The Illinois law fails right here if examined with strict scrutiny. One thousand feet is simply arbitrary, and not narrowly tailored - end of story. Second Amendment cases should not be judged using Rational Basis - period !

If the law was struck down under rational basis that is actually a good thing. If a law can’t survive the lower standard there is no need to consider anything Stricter.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Actually, it was stuck down on the basis of "elevated intermediate scrutiny". The court has adopted a sliding scale of intermediate scrutiny and must decide where on the scale the issue at bar fits. This is close to strict scrutiny in this case. See the opinion discussion at paragraphs 34 through 40, and their statements at paragraphs 46 and 50 as to what standard they are using.

I don't think the state argued very well. It's not surprising because the Illinois patronage system puts incompetent boneheads in the Attorney General's office.

When Chief Justice Karmeier illustrates why the law should be examined with intermediate scrutiny he says:

As to the second variable on the sliding scale, the severity of the law&rsquo;s burden on the right, the law at issue affects the gun rights of the entire law-abiding population of Illinois like the laws in Moore, Ezell, Aguilar, and Mosley. As in those cases, the law functions as a categorical prohibition without providing an exception for law-abiding individuals. It is therefore a severe burden on the recognized second amendment right of self-defense.

I don't know what kind of weak argument the state made, but there is an exception for law-abiding individuals, it is called a Concealed Carry License. The CCL exempts citizens from the 1000-foot UUW/AUUW law.

.

This is what I'm struggling with understanding. The CCL wasn't even mentioned. Ergo, it would appear that *anyone* not legally prohibited from owning a gun should be able to carry within 1000' feet of a public park. No permit required.

Close but not quite. Carrying in public without a CCL is prohibited. Carrying within 1000 feet of a park is prohibited. They are two distinct offenses. He was convicted of the 1000 foot/park, and was not tried on the offense of carrying in public. The offense he was convicted of was deemed unconstitutional, but it seems to me that he is guilty of carrying in public, a separate offense.

It makes sense now that KWC pointed the offense predated the FCCA. I wasn't grasping why or how that could not have been a consideration. I thought it was a 2015 offense.

. . . but it seems to me that he is guilty of carrying in public, a separate offense.

I wonder if that was one of the charges they dropped in the plea deal and then petitioned the court to reinstate but the court said statute of limitations had run out.

That would be my guess. He won the convict lottery here, getting his conviction thrown out and denying the State the opportunity to reinstate those charges. It seems to me that if you plead guilty and then ask the court to set aside the conviction you are violating your terms of the agreement and the State should have the opportunity to try you on the other charges. But evidently that is not the way it works.

Carrying in public without a CCL is prohibited. Carrying within 1000 feet of a park is prohibited. They are two distinct offenses. He was convicted of the 1000 foot/park, and was not tried on the offense of carrying in public. The offense he was convicted of was deemed unconstitutional, but it seems to me that he is guilty of carrying in public, a separate offense.

The law is poorly written. Someone could commit the offense of "Unlawful Use of Weapons" and be looking at anything from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class X felony.

(720 ILCS 5/24-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 24-1)

Sec. 24-1. Unlawful use of weapons part c outlines the different offenses that are committed by being in different locations

( c ) Violations in specific places.

(1) A person who violates subsection 24-1(a)(6) or 24-1(a)(7) in any school, regardless of the time of day or the time of year, in residential property owned, operated or managed by a public housing agency or leased by a public housing agency as part of a scattered site or mixed-income development, in a public park, in a courthouse, on the real property comprising any school, regardless of the time of day or the time of year, on residential property owned, operated or managed by a public housing agency or leased by a public housing agency as part of a scattered site or mixed-income development, on the real property comprising any public park, on the real property comprising any courthouse, in any conveyance owned, leased or contracted by a school to transport students to or from school or a school related activity, in any conveyance owned, leased, or contracted by a public transportation agency, or on any public way within 1,000 feet of the real property comprising any school, public park, courthouse, public transportation facility, or residential property owned, operated, or managed by a public housing agency or leased by a public housing agency as part of a scattered site or mixed-income development commits a Class 2 felony and shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 3 years and not more than 7 years.

Carrying in public without a CCL is prohibited. Carrying within 1000 feet of a park is prohibited. They are two distinct offenses. He was convicted of the 1000 foot/park, and was not tried on the offense of carrying in public. The offense he was convicted of was deemed unconstitutional, but it seems to me that he is guilty of carrying in public, a separate offense.

The law is poorly written. Someone could commit the offense of "Unlawful Use of Weapons" and be looking at anything from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class X felony.

(720 ILCS 5/24-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 24-1)

Sec. 24-1. Unlawful use of weapons part c outlines the different offenses that are committed by being in different locations

( c ) Violations in specific places.

(1) A person who violates subsection 24-1(a)(6) or 24-1(a)(7) in any school, regardless of the time of day or the time of year, in residential property owned, operated or managed by a public housing agency or leased by a public housing agency as part of a scattered site or mixed-income development, in a public park, in a courthouse, on the real property comprising any school, regardless of the time of day or the time of year, on residential property owned, operated or managed by a public housing agency or leased by a public housing agency as part of a scattered site or mixed-income development, on the real property comprising any public park, on the real property comprising any courthouse, in any conveyance owned, leased or contracted by a school to transport students to or from school or a school related activity, in any conveyance owned, leased, or contracted by a public transportation agency, or on any public way within 1,000 feet of the real property comprising any school, public park, courthouse, public transportation facility, or residential property owned, operated, or managed by a public housing agency or leased by a public housing agency as part of a scattered site or mixed-income development commits a Class 2 felony and shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 3 years and not more than 7 years.

The law is poorly written? You live in Illinois and this surprises you?

Alot of laws are stupid. Thats one question I asked my instructor. Depending on my route to and from work, I sometimes drive thru a park. I asked him if I would be breaking the law, he told me I was fine as I was only driving thru.

Alot of laws are stupid. Thats one question I asked my instructor. Depending on my route to and from work, I sometimes drive thru a park. I asked him if I would be breaking the law, he told me I was fine as I was only driving thru.

If you have a CCL, you are fine because you are in the confines of your vehicle. Even out of your vehicle, if you are on a public right of way that goes through the park, your are fine. The 1,000 foot rule does not apply to those with a CCL.

The U.S. Supreme Court, of course, has recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to arms. But anti-gun lower courts – many of which for years denied the existence of any such individual right at all – have largely ignored the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment rulings and have continued to interpret the provision into near irrelevance. Federal rulings on the Second Amendment are replete with references to “intermediate scrutiny,” a toothless standard that allows antigun officials broad leeway to infringe the rights of law-abiding Americans, including with bans on popular firearms and virtual bans on public carry.